Sunday, November 12, 2017

The biggest news of this past week wasn't that Roy Moore, who might be heading to the United States senate soon, is a pedophile. (It might be the most disgusting, but it's not the most important.) The most important news of the weekend is that Donald trump openly admitted that he believes the words of a tyrant more than he does his own intelligence agencies.

The following article might give us some insight into why Mr. trump refuses to call out the Russians for meddling in America's elections.

The Field Negro education series continues.

"President Donald Trump hasn’t delivered on his campaign promise to create U.S. coal or steel jobs (foreign steel imports are up 27 percent this year), but he is creating a bonanza in the business of “fake news.”

Admittedly a lot of those jobs have been outsourced to Russia, but Trump is also providing plenty of employment at home.

Even before Monday’s bombshells from special counsel Robert Mueller — Trump’s campaign manager and his business partner have been indicted on multiple counts of laundering more than $18 million from pro-Russian clients in Ukraine, while a Trump foreign policy advisor pleaded guilty to lying about his efforts to solicit Clinton “dirt” from Russian contacts — Trump and his associates had launched Operation Obfuscation. Their far-fetched claim is that the real collusion isn’t between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. It’s between Hillary Clinton and the Kremlin.

“It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump,” Trump tweeted on Friday. “Was collusion with HC!” Then on Sunday, with the indictments looming, a more desperate version of the same message: “There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. DO SOMETHING!” And on Monday, after the indictments were announced: “[W]hy aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????”

Picking up the theme, Trump’s faithful follower Jeanine Pirro blared on Fox News: “It’s time to shut it down, turn the tables, and lock her up.” Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka did her one better. He implied that Hillary Clinton was guilty of treason, just like the Rosenbergs, and that she too deserves the electric chair!

What, exactly, is the evidence for these hyperbolic claims? White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders asserted: “The evidence Clinton campaign, DNC & Russia colluded to influence the election is indisputable.” True — if “indisputable” has been redefined to mean “nonexistent.” The White House case, based on little more than warmed-over hearsay and discredited conspiracy mongering, relates to two familiar controversies: the Steele dossier alleging Trump-Russia links and the Russian acquisition of a Canadian company that owns uranium mines in America.

The Steele dossier, compiled by the respected former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, landed in the news recently when a law firm representing the Clinton campaign admitted to having paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile it. (Earlier, we now know, Fusion had been hired by conservative news site the Washington Free Beacon to research Trump and other candidates.) The horror! If you listen to Trump’s defenders, it’s perfectly proper for Donald Trump Jr. to seek opposition research from Russian agents but a death-penalty offense for the Clinton campaign to try to uncover the Trump-Russia links. In their telling, the investigation of a potential crime is as bad as the crime itself. Huh?

The argument seems to be that because Steele talked to Russian sources in the course of compiling his dossier, he, and thus the entire Clinton campaign, was “colluding” with the Kremlin. By the same logic, anytime the CIA talks to Russian agents it, too, is “colluding” with Russia. This is to render the word “collusion” meaningless — which is precisely the point.

It’s perfectly possible, even probable, that some misinformation made it into the Steele dossier. That’s often the case with raw intelligence files. But the veteran CIA officer John Sipher has concluded that a “large portion of the dossier is crystal clear, certain, consistent and corroborated.”

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin talk during the family photo session at the APEC Summit in Danang, Vietnam November 11, 2017.Reuters/Jorge Silva
There is no reason to suppose, as the Trumpkins posit, that the Kremlin fed all this information to Steele in the hopes of discrediting Trump when no one could be certain that the report would ever become public. Why, in any case, would the Kremlin seek to discredit the most pro-Russian candidate ever to pursue the presidency? Why, moreover, would Putin want to help Hillary Clinton, whom he is widely reported to revile for her tough anti-Russia line? And why, if the Kremlin were intent on making Trump out to be a Russian stooge, would its spokesman so vociferously deny that very charge? To believe that the Steele dossier was an elaborate Kremlin ploy requires the same sort of faith-based reasoning necessary to believe that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. or that Ted Cruz’s father killed JFK.

In the final analysis, the Steele dossier is a sideshow, and the question of who funded it is a sideshow of a sideshow. Yes, the FBI saw it, but it’s not the basis for the unanimous assessment released in early January by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the director of national intelligence concluding that the Kremlin interfered in the U.S. election to help Trump and hurt Clinton. Nor is the Steele dossier the reason why independent counsel Robert Mueller has been appointed to investigate the president. Mueller was appointed only after (1) Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself after not having been truthful about his own contacts with Russia’s ambassador during the campaign and (2) Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in a self-confessed attempt to stop the probe of the “Russia thing.”
Thus Trump is now being investigated not only for collusion with a hostile foreign power but also for obstruction of justice and probably other offenses as well — and based on the indictments unsealed Monday, special counsel Mueller is making rapid progress. The truth or falsity of the Steele dossier does not affect the outcome of this investigation in the slightest.

What about the uranium deal, which Trump has compared to Watergate and his “minister of information,” Sean Hannity, has called “the biggest scandal — or, at least, one of them — in American history”? If you listen to the hype, you would think that in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton allowed the Russians to loot America’s uranium reserves. As Trump said on Oct. 24, 2016: “Remember that Hillary Clinton gave Russia 20 percent of American uranium and, you know, she was paid a fortune.”

The reality, as numerous media organizations have documented, is rather more prosaic. In 2010, Russia’s nuclear-energy agency, Rosatom, applied to buy a majority stake in Uranium One, a Canadian firm that controls roughly 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves. The deal had to be cleared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes a representative of the State Department along with eight other federal agencies. Ultimate approval authority to stop the deal lay with President Obama. The government duly OK’d the sale, because it wasn’t judged to be a threat to national security. Rosatom was prohibited from exporting any of the uranium, and the mining licenses would remain with U.S. subsidiaries controlled by American citizens.

If you believe the conspiracy-mongers, however, the reason the deal went ahead is that Uranium One’s owner contributed beaucoup bucks to the Clinton Foundation. Fact check: Foundation donor Frank Giustra sold his company to Uranium One in 2007 and says he unloaded his personal stake in the firm at that time — three years before Rosatom tried to buy Uranium One. Bill Clinton did get $500,000 for a speech in Moscow in 2010, but there is no evidence that this was part of any quid pro quo, and there are no records of Rosatom contributing to the Clinton Foundation.
Moreover, Hillary Clinton says she was not personally involved in the review of the sale, and the official who represented the State Department on the review panel backs her up. Even if they are lying, Clinton’s vote still would have been only one of nine, so the approval of the sale was hardly her doing.

The real scandal may turn out to be Trump’s efforts to tar Clinton. CNN has reported that “Trump made it clear he wanted the gag order lifted on an undercover informant who played a critical role in an FBI investigation into Russian efforts to gain influence in the uranium industry in the United States during the Obama administration.” If true, this would suggest that Trump is actively interfering with the course of justice in order to impugn a political opponent.

This episode recalls Trump’s efforts earlier this year to prove that Obama had wiretapped him. In September, Trump’s own Justice Department definitively refuted this reckless allegation, writing in a court filing: “Both FBI and NSD [National Security Division] have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets.” The only crime that may have been committed was by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who had to step down from overseeing the Kremlingate probe because of accusations that he had leaked classified information to concoct an “Obama surveillance scandal.”

Now Nunes has directed the House Intelligence Committee to investigate the uranium deal in cooperation with the House Oversight Committee, while the House Judiciary Committee is set to launch the umpteenth probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The operating principle was laid out by Trump himself in his final debate with Clinton when he responded to her accusations that he was a pawn of Putin by sputtering with his trademark eloquence: “No puppet, no puppet. You’re the puppet.” This is the reasoning of an elementary school playground: “I know you are, but what am I?”

That Trump’s defenders find this riposte so compelling is an indicator of the extent to which they are willing to suspend their critical faculties in slavish service to their maximum leader. As for the rest of us, we need to ignore the Trumpkins’ attempts to shift the conversation and focus like a laser on the case that Mueller and his Untouchables are building against the president of the United States and his closest associates. " [Source]

47 comments:

He did back off a bit later saying he does trust his intelligence agencies. Well, at least with trump we know it can't get worse. Then again the repubs may be grooming Rudy Ray Moore for the white house.😜

Despite James Clapper, President Obama's Director of National Intelligenc asserting otherwise, no evidence of Russia hacking the DNC emails that were given to Wikileaks has ever been produced. Julian Assange says unequivocally that Russia was not the source of the emails:

http://time.com/4620806/julian-assange-russia-hack-fox-hannity/

James Clapper, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance:

I was thinking of writting about James Clapper statement that there is no evidence of collusion, but Look past the lies.. beat me to it. I can answer his last question though. They want to prevent good relations with Russia because Russia defeated their ISIS proxy fighters. They wanted to overthrow Syria for Israel and Saudi Arabia (as Wikileaks showed) and they want a pipeline through Syria that Russia doesn't want.

I don't know that the dossier isn't true, just because the lying media says it isn't. Maybe the CIA is saving it. Maybe we would have seen the pee pee tape if Trump had released all the JFK files. And I sure can't believe pathological liar Donna Brazile. But if she is right that there was a contract for Hillary to have complete control of the DNC in exchange for financing them, then it is likely that Hillary financed the dossier (through the DNC). The only reason why I care about things like that and her emails is because prosecuting her for campaign finance violations or Espionage Act violations would at least be something. She shouldn't be above the law. She should be tried at the Hague for war crimes. Obama protectd the Bush Administration. If Trump protects the Obama Administration, the swamp has won.

It must suck to hijack your party, steal a nomination, turn the DNC into money laundromat, bury any evidence against you, finance a fake dossier on opponent, get the media to ignore your collusion with Russia and instead accuse your opponent of it, swipe the debate questions, and promise free everything, and still lose to someone you call incompetent.

Sure, party first huh? Ignore the damage trump is doing to the country which may never be undone so you can do a victory lap. Yeah! The Russians win because America is divided just like they planned while trump plays nice with Putin.

"That Trump’s defenders find this riposte so compelling is an indicator of the extent to which they are willing to suspend their critical faculties in slavish service to their maximum leader."

Twenty years of Fox News, hate radio, and the wingnut welfare publishing industry has transformed the core Republican electorate into infinitely reprogrammable addicts to the lies they produce daily and hourly, as demonstrated by the comments above this one.

Fergus is flailing around way over his head and has no clue as to what he may have done that could get him in trouble, as no-one, even him, believed he would win and be accountable for any of it, so he just didn't pay that much attention to it. That's why none of his minions can present one lie and stick with it: he can't either, and is too goddamn stubborn and narcissistic to listen to anyone who could actually help him.

He certainly has checked a lot of boxes on Putin's wish list, so even if he flames out early and loses control of congress, Putin has gotten a good return on his investment. The gutting of the state department alone is enough to keep that little KGB smile on his face for a good long time.

Only stoopid fucking wingnuts think sucking up to another ruthless dictator is a good idea.

But what did you expect from stoopid fucking wingnuts. They don't care that Putin's political enemies up and disappear. They don't care that members of the media are killed. Hell, they hope that happens in Russia America.

Putin is working the dumbfucker in the WH for permission to annex more former soviet satellite states and consolidating power to threaten western Europe again. Like drumpfuck his word is worthless.

I pointed out that Mike Flynn colluded with Turkey not Russia back when the media first started lying about that. And I suspected that our NATO ally Turkey was a top supporter of ISIS before I realized that we were supporting ISIS too. Turkey bought oil and artifacts from ISIS. Two summers ago John Kerry told Putin that we would concentrate on fighting ISIS instead of Assad and Turkey started being attacked by terrorists. Apparently Turkey had followed our lead. They decided they didn't want a destabilized Syria on their border and switched sides, even though we didn't stick to it.

I wrote about Turkey being worried that Turkish Kurds would unite with Kurds in neighboring countries and revolt for independence and how Trump helping Kurds liberate areas from ISIS was a point of contention. I wrote about Flynn colluding with Turkey to get the Clinton's big donor Iman friend sent to Turkey. I wrote about the Iman and arrested U.S. consulate officials being involved in the failed coup. And I wrote about Clinton supporting the coup that happened when Turkey switched sides and opposed ISIS. Flynn worked for Turkey after they opposed ISIS. Clinton supported Turkey when they helped ISIS.

I am one of the "racists" who voted for Obama twice. Then I found out he started supporting ISIS in 2013, probably largely at Hillary's urging. Imagine what field hands would say if Trump were accused of buying complete control of the RNC and rigging the GOP primaries. I'm amazed by how many people belief what they want to believe instead of figuring out what makes sense.

"Imagine what field hands would say if Trump were accused of buying complete control of the RNC and rigging the GOP primaries"

In the end political parties are going to so exactly what they want to do. They collude to keep other viable candidates from seeing the light of day. This is what happens when you only have two major parties. Hillary and Barack raised millions for the Dems while Bernie not so much, whom did you think was gonna won the nomination?

Back in December Flynn met with high ranking Russkies and discussed lowering sanctions on Russians. Flynn had no legal, moral or ethical duty to meet ollegally with the enemy and make deals. He was not an elected official and Drumpfuck was a month or more from committing perjury on 2 separate bibbles.

Flynn also colluded woth various people to spread rumours about HRC and kiddie prostitution. In fact he conspired to spread knowingly false info. Collusion and conspiracy. Toss in cunt for the trifecta.

So when facing pushback for including the repeal of the Johnson Amendment (which states that churches can not both campaign for elections and be tax exempt) in their "tax reform" bill, the Republicans decided that they would just include all 501(c)(3) organizations along with the churches. So all of them could spend money on elections and still be tax exempt. Swamp? What swamp? I don't see any swamp...

One looking for a virgin to wife up for the long term.-------------Translated from racist bullshit: "James can't deal with grown women so he has to go after little girls". I'm shocked!BwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHagahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescents. Moore was courting 16-17 yr olds, who are physically grown women and entirely legal in most states.----------------Oh yeah, that's soooooooo much better a grown assed 30 something dude cruising for 16 year olds. Hey, is anyone shocked James Biatch can't handle a grown woman? James, are you banned from the YMCA and the local mall too?Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Should have known James' weird ass was some kind of Jesusfreak homeschooled type. Now THAT would explain his 1530 SAT. He didn't mean the real SAT but one made by his auntiemom.Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Moore was courting 16-17 yr olds, who are physically grown women and entirely legal in most states.--------------Nope, Moore was diddling 14 year olds. I know you weird Jesus freaks stick together but c'mon man 30 year olds kicking it with high school girls is fucking weird! Admit it Jamie.

- I guess the notion is that a young virgin is supposedly more pliable and easy to habituate to being subservient chattel...?- That seems to be the only way some folks can have a long-term "relationship". - Others just lack the emotional and psychological maturity to deal with a partner who is an adult - never mind one who is [GASP!!!] an Equal. -- How odd that Moore was banned from at least one mall - despite his position of power - because so many people were aware of his proclivities, and yet *NOW*, there are kaboodles of support and acceptance being shown to him. - It just seems to be a weird shift in the general attitude. - Or probably not a shift in attitude, probably it's that the people who share his proclivities feel emboldened, and are just a hell of a lot louder than the folks who've known about him for decades... -

^^^ You're wicked ;) - I did forget to mention the aspect of a narcissistic desire to dominate and control which some people have, so they look for people who are submissive - or else inexperienced. - Actually, I think all pedophiles are narcissistic, based on their own actions and especially their own words. These puddles of pig diarrhoea don't give a flip how their actions affect the lives of the kids they abuse. - In the end, having seen the effect that such "attentions" had on my sisters' lives, and on other girls I've known, I personally feel that all pedophiles should be turned into nullos, preferably (IMO) in a way involving piano wire and a bucket that has water dripping into it slooooooowly. - As for punishing the reeking mounds of vulture vomit who make excuses for them and give them support, well, I'll leave that up to your imagination. -

TWEET ME

@fieldnegro

Follow the The Field Negro via e-mail.

DISCLAIMER

*COMMENTS, LINKS, AND CUT AND PASTE ARTICLES, ARE NOT ALL ENDORSED BY THE PUBLISHER.

THIS BLOG claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

MORE DISCLAIMERS

***The views expressed on this site are the field's and the field's alone. They do not reflect the views of his employer, or any professional or legal organization with which he is affiliated.***

This is a commercial free blog.

Money is nice, but being able to speak my mind is better.

"Real talk: Daniel Rubin has a great little piece up wherein he chats with The Field Negro, the Philly-based blogger who sharply ponders all things black on a daily basis. (Seriously, if you’ve never checked in with TFN, you should: Its author, Wayne Bennett, is a fantastic read who can cut through bullshit like a hot knife through butter, which is a far grosser analogy than I wanted to make, but there you have it.)" ~Philebrity~

"One of the most precocious and hilarious Black political minds on the net. Ive been a long-time fan!" ~Asad Malik~

"..While most of what he writes is tongue-in-cheek, his space is a safe house for candid discussions about race, especially in the comments section, where people of all colors meet."~~Daniel Rubin, "The Philadelphia Inquirer"~~

"To white people, Bennett's musings are like kitchen-table talk from a kitchen they may otherwise never set foot in. To African Americans, he is part of a growing army of black Internet amateurs who have taken up the work once reserved for ministers and professional activists: the work of setting a black agenda, shaping black opinion and calling attention to the state of the nation's racial affairs."

~~Richard Fausset, "L.A. Times"~~~

"That's why I love the blog "Field Negro" so much. Field, as he's known to his fans, has the sense of reality that it takes to call out the (CowPuckey) of blame beating by those who are in positions of power and their lackeys. Because of his handle and his unabashed way of writing about racial issues, Field is often cited as a "Black blogger." What he is, however, is a first-class detector of blame deflection and an excellent student of history. If you want to write about the past and future of repression there's really no other perspective to take - which is why everyone should read Field."

"Half a century after Little Rock, the Montgomery bus boycott and the tumultuous dawn of the modern civil rights era, the new face of the movement is Facebook, MySpace and some 150 black blogs united in an Internet alliance they call theAfroSpear.

Older, familiar leaders such as Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, are under challenge by a younger generation of bloggers known by such provocative screen names as Field Negro, thefreeslaveand African American Political Pundit. And many of the newest struggles are being waged online."~Howard Witt-The Chicago Tribune~

"I had no idea, for example, of the extent of the African-American blogging world out there and its collective powers of dissemination.But now, after reading thousands of anguished, thoughtful comments posted on these blogs reflecting on issues of persistent racial discrimination in the nation's schools and courtrooms, what's clear to me is that there's a new, "virtual" civil rights movement out there on the Internet that can reach more people in a few hours than all the protest marches, sit-ins and boycotts of the 1950s and 60s put together." ~Chicago Tribune Reporter, Howard Witt~